|
|
Post by respect77 on Jul 26, 2017 18:01:22 GMT
I feel the need to create one here too as it usually had great discussions on MJJC. I hope I am not the only atheist here.  |
|
|
|
Post by dancingmjsdream on Jul 26, 2017 18:40:16 GMT
You are not alone! (Pun intended)
|
|
|
|
Post by Snow White on Jul 26, 2017 18:53:57 GMT
Another heathen in DA HOUSE! And it doesn't have that spelling mistake it bothered me after a while.
|
|
|
|
Post by Russg on Jul 27, 2017 5:21:01 GMT
Shouldn't this thread be in the Politics & Religion forum?
|
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Jul 27, 2017 6:18:03 GMT
Oh I didn't realize that section.
|
|
|
|
Post by Russg on Jul 27, 2017 14:12:50 GMT
What makes atheists so sure? Isn't atheism just another faith itself, just the same as Christianity is, at the end of the day? Surely the most sensible belief system when it comes to the greater questions in life etc is to be agnostic. I neither believe nor disbelieve. There is not enough proof for me to believe, but I also accept that the human brain is too limited to comprehend concepts such as where we came from and why we're here and the afterlife etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by Snow White on Jul 27, 2017 15:24:44 GMT
It'd be irresponsible on my part assuring there's no god if I don't have the certainty,just to this day there is factual evidence that supports the existence of deities. We simply don't believe in a higher power, it's not another religion and doesn't have anything to do with faith. Faith is blindly believing in something without evidence.
|
|
|
|
Post by Russg on Jul 27, 2017 15:54:34 GMT
It'd be irresponsible on my part assuring there's no god if I don't have the certainty,just to this day there is factual evidence that supports the existence of deities. We simply don't believe in a higher power, it's not another religion and doesn't have anything to do with faith. Faith is blindly believing in something without evidence. But there is also no factual evidence to the contrary? I mean, it's something that can never be proven or disproven. |
|
|
|
Post by Snow White on Jul 27, 2017 16:18:15 GMT
The burden of proof lies on the people who are making the positive claim. If you want the others to prove a negative, you're using a logical falacy, argument from ignorance (lack of contrary evidence. ) It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa.)
|
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Jul 27, 2017 17:14:39 GMT
I have no problem calling myself both an atheist and an agnostic. It is not two different degrees, it's two different approaches and one can be both, depending on the context of the conversation. Also it is not about being "so sure". It is simply saying that as long as you don't prove there is a god we have no reason to believe that there is one. It doesn't mean a closed-mindedness. In case someone would come up with compelling evidence about the existence of God I would consider that. But so far there is no such evidence and that's it. That's all an atheist says. Like Snow White says, the burden of proof is on those who say there is a God or there are gods.
And it is a cliché, but being an atheist is as much a religion as not-collecting-stamps is a hobby. It doesn't make much sense to call it a religion or a faith. It is not a faith that there is no evidence for the God claims. It is a fact.
|
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Jul 27, 2017 17:51:38 GMT
I don't know guys if you have seen the 1972 documentary called "Marjoe". It is about a guy who was a Pentacostal preacher but later admitted to be a fraud. He explains and exposes all the usual tricks. LOL.
|
|
|
|
Post by Liberian Girl on Jul 27, 2017 20:13:59 GMT
I believe there is more to life than the physical world around us. Now obviously I could never, ever prove that any particular God or faith system is the "right" one, but I do believe there is something more, a higher power.
People talk of seeking evidence, but the fact that this world exists at all is a massive CLUE in itself. There are some very well respected scientists who believe in a creator because this world is too "perfect" to sustain our life and our planet for it to be accidental. For example, Stephen Hawkings said, “The universe and the laws of physics seem to have been specifically designed for us. If any of about 40 physical qualities had more than slightly different values, life as we know it could not exist: Either atoms would not be stable, or they wouldn’t combine into molecules, or the stars wouldn’t form the heavier elements, or the universe would collapse before life could even develop, and so on...” ( Austin American-Statesman, October 19, 1997).
Evolution does not explain this, all it does it show how it could have developed from the outset.
Ignoring the problem of an existing world such as ours is like walking through a forest, and seeing a bright, blue, amazing ball. One person asks another, "How did this beautiful ball get there?" Their friend answers, simply, "Oh, one day it just appeared and grew and now it simply exists." Well, that answer isn't enough for me. I think existence equates to a creator. A starting point. I believe there is a source for that.
If something has an origin, it has an originator. One massive question of philosophy is, "Why does something exist instead of nothing?" Everything with a beginning must have a cause.
Anyway, I know this thread isn't really for debating faith/religion/creator theories. I don't want to post where I should not. I just wanted to add my thoughts. Mod can delete if necessary.
|
|
|
|
Post by LindavG on Jul 27, 2017 21:56:32 GMT
I'm an atheist too  What makes atheists so sure? Isn't atheism just another faith itself, just the same as Christianity is, at the end of the day? Surely the most sensible belief system when it comes to the greater questions in life etc is to be agnostic. I neither believe nor disbelieve. There is not enough proof for me to believe, but I also accept that the human brain is too limited to comprehend concepts such as where we came from and why we're here and the afterlife etc. We had a discussion about the difference between atheism and agnosticism on MJJC not too long ago. I hope you won't mind me reposting some of my quotes below, as I think they address your question This was in response to someone who said "agnostics are basically open to the idea of a higher power and atheists do not believe one exists." When you say there is not enough proof for you to believe in God, then by definition you're an atheist. Of course, whether you choose to identify as such is up to you It's true that atheism is a matter of belief so in that sense it's similar to Christianity but I wouldn't equate them as being just as valid. Atheism makes no positive claims, it is merely a lack of belief in the existence of gods. That is all. Christianity on the other hand makes very specific claims that can be verified historically or scientifically. We can't know for sure whether a man lived inside a whale for three days and came out without a scratch, or whether once upon a time the snakes and bushes could talk, or whether the first human was made from dust on the ground, but certainly it is more reasonable to disbelieve in these claims than to believe in them, based on the evidence. |
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Jul 27, 2017 23:13:24 GMT
People talk of seeking evidence, but the fact that this world exists at all is a massive CLUE in itself. There are some very well respected scientists who believe in a creator because this world is too "perfect" to sustain our life and our planet for it to be accidental. For example, Stephen Hawkings said, “The universe and the laws of physics seem to have been specifically designed for us. If any of about 40 physical qualities had more than slightly different values, life as we know it could not exist: Either atoms would not be stable, or they wouldn’t combine into molecules, or the stars wouldn’t form the heavier elements, or the universe would collapse before life could even develop, and so on...” ( Austin American-Statesman, October 19, 1997). Stephen Hawking does not believe in a creator, in fact he identifies as an atheist. www.nbcnews.com/science/space/im-atheist-stephen-hawking-god-space-travel-n210076Nor does it claim to explain the origin of the universe, so I don't know why theists constantly point to evolution not explaining something that it doesn't profess to explain and that is outside of its realm. Evolution however, is in total harmony with cosmological and other scientific evidence, unlike the Biblical or Quranic creation stories are. There is no "problem of an existing world". Like Hawking said above there are very good scientific explanations by now for the existing world. The argument that if we don't (yet) know something that means the answer is "God did it" is called the "God of gaps" fallacy - something that people kept committing throughout history. When people couldn't explain something based on their current knowledge they assumed a God or gods as a reason. Then scientific discovery proved it was not God but it had a perfectly natural explanation. There is no reason to think it won't be the same with currently still existing gaps as well. It is also a fallacy that if something exists it must have had a creator. If that is the case then the creator also must have had a creator. And the creator's creator also had to have a creator etc. But if you say a creator just "is" and "forever" then you beat your own argument that if something exists it necessarily must have had a creator. And if you say the creator didn't have to had a creator then the world doesn't either, so the argument beats itself ultimately. |
|
|
|
Post by LindavG on Jul 27, 2017 23:18:24 GMT
I believe there is more to life than the physical world around us. Now obviously I could never, ever prove that any particular God or faith system is the "right" one, but I do believe there is something more, a higher power. People talk of seeking evidence, but the fact that this world exists at all is a massive CLUE in itself. There are some very well respected scientists who believe in a creator because this world is too "perfect" to sustain our life and our planet for it to be accidental. For example, Stephen Hawkings said, “The universe and the laws of physics seem to have been specifically designed for us. If any of about 40 physical qualities had more than slightly different values, life as we know it could not exist: Either atoms would not be stable, or they wouldn’t combine into molecules, or the stars wouldn’t form the heavier elements, or the universe would collapse before life could even develop, and so on...” ( Austin American-Statesman, October 19, 1997). Evolution does not explain this, all it does it show how it could have developed from the outset. Ignoring the problem of an existing world such as ours is like walking through a forest, and seeing a bright, blue, amazing ball. One person asks another, "How did this beautiful ball get there?" Their friend answers, simply, "Oh, one day it just appeared and grew and now it simply exists." Well, that answer isn't enough for me. I think existence equates to a creator. A starting point. I believe there is a source for that. If something has an origin, it has an originator. One massive question of philosophy is, "Why does something exist instead of nothing?" Everything with a beginning must have a cause. Anyway, I know this thread isn't really for debating faith/religion/creator theories. I don't want to post where I should not. I just wanted to add my thoughts. Mod can delete if necessary. I hope we can debate religion in this thread, those discussions are usually way more interesting than atheists talking to themselves, lol. As long as everyone is respectful, I think it's all good You mentioned Stephen Hawking but despite of what that quote suggests, he is an outspoken atheist. I don't see the existence of this planet or its ability to sustain life as a clue of anything since there are billions and billions of planets in the universe that cannot sustain life as we know it. Earth happens to be one planet where the conditions for live to develop are just right - if it wasn't, we wouldn't know about it because we wouldn't exist. We would simply be one of the other 100 billion planets in our galaxy, unknown and unknowing. The theory of evolution is not meant to explain the origin of the universe or the origin of life. There are other scientific theories for that. "If something has an origin, it has an originator" and "everything with a beginning must have a cause" are personal opinions. I don't agree that everything must have a cause or a creator - I see it as a very human-centric way to make sense of the world. And it raises the question: who created the creator? If there is an exception for the creator of everything, why can't we just skip that step and make an exception for nature itself? Edit: Respect77, I think we are just going to continue our trend of posting nearly identical posts within minutes of each other here  |
|
Dec 5, 2020 18:51:15 GMT
